Sapfo Lignou

The aim of this article is to examine whether informational manipulation, used intentionally by the researcher to increase recruitment in the research study, can be morally acceptable. We argue that this question is better answered by following a non-normative account, according to which the ethical justifiability of informational manipulation should not be relevant to its definition. The most appropriate criterion by which informational manipulation should be considered as morally acceptable or not is the researcher’s special moral duties towards their subjects. We also propose that a broader definition of manipulation of information should be adopted (than that already existing in the literature) since informational manipulation can affect not only a person’s beliefs but also their desires in decision-making. We conclude that manipulation of information can either be used to protect the potential subject and facilitate the informed consent process or be used to exploit and merely use a person for scientific goals.

The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative account by which the ethical threshold of acceptable risk in paediatric research can be assessed. Three popular interpretations of the minimal risk threshold and the problems they raise when applied in the research context are presented. First, the “risks of daily life” standard and the “routine examinations” standard are addressed. It is argued here that neither of them can provide a satisfactory morally justified framework within which risks during paediatric non-therapeutic research should be assessed. The alternative view of the “charitable participation” standard is then discussed and the argument advanced that despite its advantages, it generates unavoidable difficulties when considered in the context of medical research. Finally, the author argues that consideration of the risk to which parents are willing to expose their children in a vaccination programme in the case of an infectious disease, which does not constitute a significant threat to them, can facilitate the definition of this threshold. Although the proposed account shares some of its strong points with those already existing, it does not lead to inconsistencies when applied in research context